324 Responses

I've always considered it a kind of cargo-cultism, where the networks do their best to make the show look like a proper (ie US / UK / Aus.) operation, instead of understanding that the purpose is the transmission of timely and relevant information.

Of course, those "proper" news organisations do that too, but not, in my experience, quite to the Pythonesque levels that we see.

Ooh, Curb Your Enthusiasm is on. This week: "Larry is forced to cover his tracks after he accidentally causes the death of a country club member and kills the club's mascot in an act of self defense."

Thanks for that Russell (finally got around to watching it). Having never seen anything more than a dy-no-mite from Good Times, it's good to know that - for a while at least - it was a pretty good show.

And who knew that Black Jesus was on TV 30 years before The Boondocks?

... the networks do their best to make the show look like a proper (ie US / UK / Aus.) operation, instead of understanding that the purpose is the transmission of timely and relevant information.

There are live crosses in US news - I occasionally watch ABC World News - but often what would be a live cross here involves turning to the, say, political editor, who is now sitting in the desk next to them - rather than a live cross to wet, deserted Parliamentary forecourt.

Trivia fans may care to note that, thanks to the impetus of the 1974 Commonwealth Games, New Zealand went colour two years before Australia. I still remember seeing one at the Cantebury A&P show, then the wonder when a boxy Thorn set arrived in our lounge.

We watched the CWG portion of the 50 years celebration via Ondemand (ta orc*n). My wife bless her, was close to tears at watching Dick Tayler take the 10,000m. On reflection I wonder whether in the future there will ever be room for live FTA broadcast. It would seem a strange life indeed to go without shared cultural moments of this type. FWIW my moment was watching Linford Christie take Gold in Barcelona - I remember sticking my head out of a third floor window and announcing "he's done it...!!" to the bemused street three floors below.

But the gameshow format and light style of the Jason Gunn-hosted programme angered some who would have liked to see 50 years' commemorated in weightier style. Media websites and talkback radio ran hot with criticism yesterday.

"Thanks TVNZ for making a show that is the equivalent of offering some chips and a litre of orange juice at someone's 50th anniversary on the job," said one contributor on the web forum Public Address, adding: "Running the long history of public broadcasting through a gameshow format hosted by Jason Gunn - says it all."

Descriptions of the show on Kiwiblog included "crap" and "a pile of dog turds"

I spoke with my folks last night who watched the whole TVNZ 50-year celebration thing. They'd also discussed it within their respective work places. General consensus seems to be that everyone thought it was rubbish and painful to watch but held on in there expecting it to get better because they thought the subject deserved better treatment. Viewers felt cheated. This goes a long way in explaining the ridiculous viewing stats, where viewing numbers were sustained and even grew during the show.

I wonder whether in the future there will ever be room for live FTA broadcast. It would seem a strange life indeed to go without shared cultural moments of this type.

Will the balance continue to change between television *creating* those moments - with certain expensive programming like big dramas, final episodes and regular local serials like Shortie St - or just *reflecting* external "events" like sporting ones that bring together audiences and a particular time?

Are such events inextricably intertwined with television now anyway? How much influence does time-shifting have on those common cultural moments?

too many answers were flashed to viewers before they got a chance to participate at home.

I saw about 20 minutes of it - my partner and I are a fan of quizzes - and this is what annoyed me the most. The question was often about the show or the year of the clip, and the audience got that information put at the bottom of the screen when they showed the clip.

Surely the entertainment celebrity quiz show format can't be that hard to get right can it?

What bugs me is the way spectacle parades as information so often on TV these days: the freak-of-the-week documentary, the fat people "factual" show, the way a cooking show can't be a fucking cooking show any more -- it has to be a contest or a mission-doc.

This was already true when Postman wrote his book. I think it’s interesting to note how much more pervasive this logic has become now that we have the Internet. For instance: there is a webcam at the bottom of the Mexican Gulf that allows you to see the oil spill out (PBS has it, as do these guys - who offer it also as an iPhone app). It started off as something that BP made available to the authorities, but then it became just that, another window you could open onto real-time 24 hour news. But for what purpose? Does being able to tune into that particular channel increase the amount and quality of information available to us?

The customer is always right, problem is that the consumer is no longer the customer, the advertisers are the customer. If the consumer is not happy it is because the delivery service is at fault (Blame the Messenger?). So, if we didn't like the last 50 years of TVNZ then it must be sold to a company that "Understands" the market.See, it's all a Right Wing Plot.

I ... have been quietly waiting for a subscriber on demand model that goes beyond the cable style models I have seen in the past.

This is an important issue for many conservatives in the US - they object to the bundling of various cable channels, as this means they can't get the wholesome channels they want without also paying for filth.